Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal • Hacker News Board

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#91

Post by ransom1538 » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 1:36 AM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

Ah hypocrites. Yes. This is exactly the case. You need to bribe your way into fancy universities like the rest of the rich people - otherwise, it would have no value. The other option is to be a son/daughter of a politician. My favorite photo is of Dr. Dre's daughter getting into USC:

"My daughter got accepted into USC all on her own," the rapper wrote in the caption. "No jail time!!!!"

(Dre made a $70million dollar contribution). Thanks Dre! Continue to fight for social justice!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/24/entertainment/dr-dre-daughter...

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#92

Post by gonehome » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 1:37 AM UTC

esoterica wrote: post #67

gonehome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly (likely because the actual 'fee' for getting your kid in is more than they could afford). I was similarly bothered by this, and by the fact that nobody was worried that these students would fail out given that they cheated their way in. Says a lot about the actual signalling value vs. educationa…

> Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly. What do you think the word "bribe" means? Paying money for a service (admission to a university) is not a bribe. Exchanging money for services is literally how the entire economy works. Paying an agent of an organization money to subvert their organization's processes and steal from their emp…

The university pretends to have one admissions process, but quietly has another. It’s the subversion of their supposedly established process that makes it bribe like. Particularly when it’s money as a lever to get things in your favor.

In the quiet admissions process if you give them enough money they’ll act in your favor, but none of this is public or official and they pretend they’re not doing this at the same time.

It may not be illegal, but you’re shuffling deck chairs on the titanic of ethics at that point. If you’re selling slots at market price then do that, quietly taking money in a wink-wink donation for admissions slot looks a lot like bribery to me.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#93

Post by esoterica » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 1:49 AM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #92

esoterica wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, it feels more like they're getting punished for getting a discount and not giving the universities the bribe directly. What do you think the word "bribe" means? Paying money for a service (admission to a university) is not a bribe. Exchanging money for services is literally how the entire economy works. Paying an agent of an organization money to subvert their organization's processes and steal from their emp…

The university pretends to have one admissions process, but quietly has another. It’s the subversion of their supposedly established process that makes it bribe like. Particularly when it’s money as a lever to get things in your favor. In the quiet admissions process if you give them enough money they’ll act in your favor, but none of this is public or official and they pretend they’re not doing this at the same time…

They aren't doing any pretending. It's well publicized fact that legacies get preferential admissions and people who donate to put their names on buildings get even higher preference. It's not something they are doing quietly in the background.

The colleges I applied to all had a section on the application for listing alumni you're related to.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#94

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

js2 wrote: post #70

spaced-out wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh really? And how would one access the fair market value of an admission to Harvard?

I have no idea, but Stanford has an office for it. I assume Harvard does too. This is all completely besides the point of my comment. One of these things is bribery and corruption. The other may be unfair and people have reason not to like it, but it's above board. You want to pick nits over my use of the word donation and the fair market value of admission, go ahead.

It’s not above board as a donation qualifies for a tax deduction whereas payment for services rendered does not. It is also corruption.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#95

Post by gonehome » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:19 AM UTC

esoterica wrote: post #93

gonehome wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The university pretends to have one admissions process, but quietly has another. It’s the subversion of their supposedly established process that makes it bribe like. Particularly when it’s money as a lever to get things in your favor. In the quiet admissions process if you give them enough money they’ll act in your favor, but none of this is public or official and they pretend they’re not doing this at the same time…

They aren't doing any pretending. It's well publicized fact that legacies get preferential admissions and people who donate to put their names on buildings get even higher preference. It's not something they are doing quietly in the background. The colleges I applied to all had a section on the application for listing alumni you're related to.

Legacy admissions is a different issue (though that's a problem too).

It is not a well publicized fact that 'people who donate get even higher preference', even calling it 'preference' is a euphemistic way to obscure the bribery.

It isn't preference, there's some hidden price and people are paying it for a slot.

Nobody is paying for a building and finding out their kid is not accepted.

Show me where on any top university website it says 'as an alternative to our standard merit-based admissions process you can contact this number to discuss payment for admission'.

They can't say that, both because it would reduce their leverage in negotiating the bribe value, and because what people are paying for (in large part) is the social status of having been accepted to an exclusive institution on merit.

Universities know this, it's why they spend effort encouraging applicants they know they will never accept in an effort to drive down the acceptance percentage and drive up their exclusivity.

If it's public that your rich parent bought your slot then suddenly a lot of that status evaporates.

Since the social status is more the product in question than the actual education people paying for it don't want this to happen.

This being public is bad for the school's brand too since knowledge that a lot of students can buy their way in would reduce the status that they're selling in the first place.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#96

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:24 AM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #91

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

Ah hypocrites. Yes. This is exactly the case. You need to bribe your way into fancy universities like the rest of the rich people - otherwise, it would have no value. The other option is to be a son/daughter of a politician. My favorite photo is of Dr. Dre's daughter getting into USC: "My daughter got accepted into USC all on her own," the rapper wrote in the caption. "No jail time!!!!" (Dre made a $70million dollar…

And he got a tax deduction for it.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#97

Post by dev_tty01 » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:35 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #55

simonh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s maybe fair, but just a matter of semantics. It doesn’t change the fact that a $10m endowment can generate enough income to support a handful of full cost academic scholarships in perpetuity. Anyone not seeing the difference between that and a sports coach pocketing a few tens of thousands of dollars is suffering from severe ideological impairment.

It’s not semantics when erroneous terminology nets someone a few million in tax deductions. A donation is eligible for tax deductions. Payment in lieu of acceptance for child or increased probability of acceptance for child is not tax deductible. A sports coach pocketing a few thousand dollars, versus a much wealthier person pocketing a few million from all taxpayers. Where is the ideological impairment?

Hmm, I think you have some wrong ideas about our tax system. A tax deduction doesn't make it free money. First, you are giving up $10 million to the school. The tax deduction gets you about $3 million (more or less) in tax savings. The donor still gave up a net of $7 million and the school and students still get tremendous benefit. (The precise amounts will vary with tax rates and state, but the point is that a huge portion of the donation is still out of pocket.)

The wealthy person is not "pocketing" anything.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#98

Post by throwaway713 » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

I’ve often thought that if I ran my own company I would have a ban on hiring new grads from certain schools, particularly those like Harvard. Between their racism of denying qualified Asian applicants to accepting giant bribes to let in the children of rich or famous people, there’s no way for a company to to tell whether the credentials mean anything at all.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#99

Post by ALittleLight » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:40 AM UTC

bleepblorp wrote: post #5

I have a very hard time getting even remotely upset about the college bribery scandal when it's both legal and encouraged for the truly rich to get their failsons 'legacy admissions' at selective colleges by donating multiple millions to the institutions. The people who have been prosecuted as part of this scandal aren't being prosecuted for devaluing earned degrees at selective colleges; they're being prosecuted for…

I don't think this is a fair comparison. It's like complaining that I got in trouble for bribing the guard at the Ferrari dealership to look the other way when I drove off with a Ferrari, while the truly rich are allowed to just stroll in and pay the owner.

The point is not that you mustn't get a college entrance by paying people for it, but that you must pay the right people. If you donate two million to the university, maybe they'll admit your useless child and carry them along. The two million you donated does enough good for the University that the leadership deems it worthwhile to trade. Conversely, if you bribe the coach to lie to the University, then that's you getting something of great value for far less and without paying the appropriate people.

Being against the rich paying their way in is one thing, but this scandal isn't the same thing as that.

Re: Lori Loughlin and husband sentenced in college bribery scandal

#100

Post by onionisafruit » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:45 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #65

technotony wrote: post #61

Does anyone know why the husband got 2.5x more penalty than the wife? Was the court able to prove it was his idea or he was somehow more guilty?

It's a plea deal, he plead guilty to more crimes. >Loughlin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and Giannulli pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and honest services wire and mail fraud https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/22/us/lori-loughlin-guilty-p...

Prosecutor probably wanted one of them to plead to the higher charge and didn’t care which one.